Mental Models: The Best Way to Make Intelligent Decisions (113 Models Explained)

I recommend my book, "ReModel: Create mental models to improve your life and lead simply and effectively" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F2RS1G6, which gives you an exercise to write out your mental models so you can both learn from experience about models and how they work, and identify the main models you use in your life. There's a free excerpt here: http://joshuaspodek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ReModel_b...

To understand meditation, one has to understand how our brain works. Once you fully understand the brain, it's a no-brainer to meditate regularly. If you are game, I recommend everyone read the Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt.

Do you (or anyone else) have recommendations for applications to view OPML files on macOS?

Yes... some bias may have crept into this article. Never attribute to malice...

This is basically an ad hominem attack.

I doubt event the author incorporates all 100+ models in their every day life, but I don't believe that is the point.

These models provide some kind of an insight into some of the underlying concepts of different domains. Some of models are generic enough to have a very wide range of applications (ex: Hanlon's razor). While others are a bit too specific (ex: Fat-Tailed Processes).

The common thread across all models is that once you understand them, you have an access to a new vocabulary which can be used in almost any domain (ex: The military mental model of Asymmetric Warfare in the domain of business. In general, if you are a business person I suspect you are going to find almost all of Military/War mental models extremely useful).

The important point is to understand this metaphorical method of thinking, of how different things can be connected through abstractions, and then generate insights based on that. Once you start doing that, you'll accumulate a lot of different mental models without even realizing it. Almost everyone already uses mental models. Doing it consciously makes you that much better at it. :)

Some find it easier to apply others' mental models. Others find it easier (and more fun) to develop their own. The latter is as easy as "what principles can be extracted from what I'm learning?" and is easier on recall because the models come from one's own experience. In this way you can say we use thousands of mental models daily. In the former case--referencing others' models--those who do this tend to be adept at prioritization. They remember the models because the application is important to them. Original/own-model makers do not typically prioritize as intensely and are known to get very deep into theory. They are found all over academia.

I'm not sure I understand what the question means. I never specifically determined that "I shall henceforth follow the mental model way of thinking", but if I know a general principle that may apply in a concrete context, then yes, I will apply it to see what comes out the other side. Given that, I also didn't sit down and learned these. It's just stuff I picked up along the way:

At some point in elementary school, a teacher said that 90% of the energy is lost at each level in the food chain, meaning that if a type of bear would start eating whatever the fish eats instead of the fish itself, that type of bear would suddenly have 10× more food available. For some reason that stuck with me, and it can be applied in all sorts of systems where there are frictions with each layer further away from the source.

Similarly, I have throughout life noticed that things that have been around for a long time tend to stick around, and things that explode in popularity are likely to die off just as suddenly within a short period of time. I mentally internalised this rule of thumb as "I won't predict the demise of any technology sooner in the future than the time it has already existed for." I learned from this list that I'm not alone in this observation – it's called the Lindy effect!

The one labeled Via Negativa in the submission I learned through the lyrics of a song, which went something along the lines of, "You can't take the kid from the fight, so take the fight from the kid." At first I just thought that was a funny play with words, but then I encountered a situation where someone threatened to expose one of my actions which I knew would have been received negatively at the time; I realised there was no way I could prevent them from doing so, but I could work preemptively and shape the situation in which they would do so such that they would not have been believed. In the end, that preemptive work disincentivised them to the point where my action was not exposed. (It sounds like I murdered someone but nothing like that. I made a judgment call and I believe if I could round up the affected people today and tell them, they would be grateful for it. It's just at that point there was insufficient information and I couldn't explain my reasoning leading to the decision.)

Multiple models can be combined with success too. My fiancée was worried about her older relatives who have – fortunately – been spared many of the ailments that come with age. She reasoned that, "They have been doing so well that one of them is bound to become really ill any time now." I tried to argue that she would be right – if we knew the stochastic variable that represents their rate of illness. But we don't. And this time they're doing well? It's evidence that their rate of illness is higher than we expected, nothing else. (Not to mention that they're not independent draws – since they're relatives they either share genetic material or chose to spend the rest of their lives together. They probably have more in common than we think, and that may very well include a great resistance to illness.)

If you are observant and always, at all times, constantly, try to figure out the fundamental rules that underlie a phenomenon, you'll just learn these models as you go along.

I don't have time to dive deeply into the full list right now, but just based on a smaller sample (n=43) I have multiple times observed and acknowledged about 95% of them in existing systems, and I routinely apply 80% of them.

There are many ways to "think".

Sure, folks successfully use models/patterns/theories/beliefs/instinct to reduce complex realities into comprehensible problems with tractable paths to solutions.

But I think the enumeration of models in one's "toolbox" is less important than being able to apply them (whatever they are) skillfully.

The OP just sounds like fodder designed to appeal to biz-types who crave and worship snap decision making.

"A mental model is an explanation of someone's thought process about how something works in the real world. It is a representation of the surrounding world, the relationships between its various parts and a person's intuitive perception about his or her own acts and their consequences" this is from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model - but I remember also similar definitions from other sources.

I would say all thinking is about building a mental model - it is what lets you predict how something will behave in a particular circumstance. Some mental models are not very reusable, some are applicable in many places - and it seems useful to collect the more universal models.

I disagree with the idea that 'latticework' has no useful meaning. Here's the way Munger uses the term:

You've got to have models in your head. And you've got to array your experience both vicarious and direct on this latticework of models. You may have noticed students who just try to remember and pound back what is remembered. Well, they fail in school and in life. You've got to hang experience on a latticework of models in your head.

To me, 'latticework of models' onto which one hooks examples and personal experience is a rather neat analogy.

Which is a model.

Naming things is hard. To drop the person's name from the model you'd ideally have a replacement that is both concise and expressive; a concise name allows us to effectively talk about the model itself, which is also important. Often, where such a phrase exists it's already used as an alternative:

* Occam's Razor: Law of Parsimony

* Pareto Principle: 80/20 Rule

* Hanlon's Razor: arguably an extension of the Principle of Charity

I do agree that moving away from the people names would be a benefit if (and maybe only if) we can find a similarly concise replacement.

His newsletter is actually the only newsletter that I get weekly and skim it regularly.

I agree with other commenters that sometimes the material is weak and more like "Do these 5 things that successful people (bankers, investors, entrepreneurs) do and be also succesful" but generally there is quality content on this blog.

I don't think I agree. At least in most cases. It might be important to learn the math in order for the models to make sense, but once you learn the model you don't need the math. For example, most circuit designers don't use any math (other than simple arithmetic and algebra) when designing circuits because they have heuristics that allow them not to think about the math. In that case, thinking about the math just gets you bogged down in the details.